❓ A parliamentary question scrutinizes the WA government's decision to award the Fines Enforcement Collections tender to Repcol, questioning their past performance and higher cost compared to other bidders. The government defends the decision citing additional contributions and a favorable Auditor General report.
AnsweredQoN 2759Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Is the Premier aware that his Government has recently awarded to Repcol the tender for the Fines Enforcement Collections system in Western Australia?
(2) Is the Premier aware that over the past four years Repcol, as the previous contractor for such collections, collected $17.2 million out of $91.80 million in fines?
(3) Does the Premier believe that a success rate of 19% in collections of unpaid fines is acceptable?
(4) Is it correct that a number of small firms tendered prices lower than Repcol?
(5) If ‘yes’ to (4), why was such as major contract given to a company with such a poor performance in the past?
(2) Is the Premier aware that over the past four years Repcol, as the previous contractor for such collections, collected $17.2 million out of $91.80 million in fines?
(3) Does the Premier believe that a success rate of 19% in collections of unpaid fines is acceptable?
(4) Is it correct that a number of small firms tendered prices lower than Repcol?
(5) If ‘yes’ to (4), why was such as major contract given to a company with such a poor performance in the past?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
1 July 2004
Response time
86 days
(2)-(3) The Department of Justice advise that Repcol have collected $17.2 million in court fines (Repcol do not recover infringements) over this period. Over the same time they executed warrants to the value of approximately $15 million by referral for work and development orders. They also arranged $11.9 million to be paid over time, a high proportion of which is likely to be fully recovered. (4) Yes (5) See 2. Furthermore, the Department of Justice advise that the Auditor General reported favourably upon the performance of the contracts in September 2001.
(4) Yes (5) See 2. Furthermore, the Department of Justice advise that the Auditor General reported favourably upon the performance of the contracts in September 2001.
(5) See 2. Furthermore, the Department of Justice advise that the Auditor General reported favourably upon the performance of the contracts in September 2001.
(4) Yes (5) See 2. Furthermore, the Department of Justice advise that the Auditor General reported favourably upon the performance of the contracts in September 2001.
(5) See 2. Furthermore, the Department of Justice advise that the Auditor General reported favourably upon the performance of the contracts in September 2001.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.